MJIL Online

MJIL Online brings you timely short-form articles that represent a wide range of views on contemporary issues in international and comparative law. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors only.


 

Xun Yuan
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
In May 2016, the Kenyan government announced that it would start closing the world’s largest refugee camp – Dadaab camp. At the same time, the government determined, with the assistance of UNHCR, to speed up the expatriation process for Somali refugees who currently reside in the camp.[1]This puts Kenyan government in clear violation of international law.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Kenya is a signatory, provides “[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threated on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”[2] Such non-refoulement principle has been widely embraced by different states. Moreover, the African Union Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa – a Convention Kenya has ratified – grants refugees a broader protection and forbids a Contracting State to reject “at the frontier,” which usually entails the action of closing the border completely to refugees – an action that would consequently “compel him to remain in a territory where his life ... would be threatened.”[3]

There are two occasions in which States are allowed to “repatriate”

Sam Han
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
Under international law, “statelessness” is the status given to an individual without citizenship under the operation of any country’s laws.[1] In the United States, an estimated 35,000 intercountry adoptees currently do not possess U.S. citizenship,[2] and by definition, are considered stateless persons. By no fault of their own, many of these adoptees are not given citizenship because of clerical errors or the oversight of their adoptive parents.[3] This has significant legal ramifications, especially in contexts where these adoptees face deportation.[4]
While U.S. citizens with criminal convictions would not be stripped of their citizenships nor face deportation, adoptees who have habitually resided in the U.S. without citizenship are subject to deportation because the law has not yet addressed their precarious circumstances. Congress has attempted to rectify this concern and has proposed the Adoptee Citizenship Act, which grants citizenship to adoptees facing deportation. However, since its introduction in 2015, the Act has yet to gain steam and still leaves these adoptees in a predicament of having to leave a country they would not be forced to leave if they had citizenship.

Rather than anticipating congressional action for a remedy, one possible resolution for stateless adoptees might be to seek out

Rachel Barr
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
On October 5, The New York Times published a heart-wrenching article entitled “Stepping Over the Dead on a Migrant Boat.”[1] The piece contained one photographer’s story and photos from his time spent on a recue boat in the Mediterranean. It told of the desperation and fear of the migrants, and the shock he felt witnessing the rescue of survivors from packed, unseaworthy boats.[2]

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 3,654 people have died or gone missing trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea so far this year.[3] Many of those making the crossing are fleeing conflict and persecution; a majority (51%) are coming from Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq, with others coming from East and West Africa, and other areas in the Middle East.[4]

With accounts of massively overcrowded boats[5] and lifejackets that aren’t buoyant,[6] the Mediterranean Sea crossing being attempted by thousands of migrants is a humanitarian disaster. We must not stand idly by. International law requires action in response to these horrific circumstances.

Following age-old maritime traditions, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) obliges that a ship master “render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being

Alejandra Salmeron Alfaro
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) was passed by the Senate in May and the House in September of this year.[1] President Obama vetoed the Act on September 23rd.[2] In historic fashion, five days later Congress overrode Obama’s veto for the first time in his eight years as President.[3] The bill in question amends the federal judicial code to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity.[4] Sovereign immunity, as defined by Congress, is a foreign state’s immunity from the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts.[5] In more specific terms, the bill waives sovereign immunity protections for Saudi Arabia and allows victims of the September 11 attacks and their relatives to sue the Saudi government for allegedly aiding the hijackers.[6]



The override of Obama’s veto has caused domestic and international concern for a variety of reasons.[7] These include the possibility that the Act will backfire and bring suits from other countries against the United States, the potential repercussions for foreign relations, the implications for how the United States is perceived by the rest of the international community, and its clash with long standing international principles.[8]

The principle of sovereign immunity has been part of traditional domains of

Rebecca Hughes
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
On May 4, 2016, the European Union (EU) announced a new plan to address the massive influx of migrants.[1] The plan, called the Common European Asylum System,[2] was proposed to address flaws in the Dublin Regulation, Europe’s current asylum mechanism,[3] and create a fairer, more efficient, and more sustainable system.[4] The current system requires refugees to claim asylum in the first EU member state in which they arrive.[5] Refugees who do not do this, and later try to claim asylum in a different member state are deported back to their country of first arrival.[6] This system places a heavy burden on entry states, most specifically Greece in the current crisis.[7]



The new proposal, nicknamed “Dublin Plus”[8] as some have called it, introduces a corrective allocation mechanism, or fairness mechanism.[9] The mechanism makes mandatory an emergency provision.[10] Refugees are still required to claim asylum in the their country of first arrival, with the new policy coming into effect if a country receives one hundred and fifty percent more than its annual “fair share” (determined based on country size and population).[11] New applicants will then be relocated across all EU member states until the “fair share” level is reached.[12]

Ava Morgenstern
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
International human rights law is unfashionable this year. Right-of-center politicians in the United States and United Kingdom, exploiting fears of migration and terrorism, have attacked international institutions as out of touch with local populations. Entrepreneurs of populist nationalism frame elite globalist bureaucrats as detached from ordinary citizens. This rhetoric however may have a short shelf life. Though older voters – who tend to vote more – distrust international law, younger voters – who show up at the polls less – feel much more favorably. In the long-term, this generational gap may sharply change public opinion and thus the work of international lawyers and policymakers.



Throughout 2016, major politicians have elevated national sovereignty and attacked international human rights law. In the United States, Donald Trump aligns himself with leaders who discount international norms in favor of sovereignty and expansive military power, most notably Vladimir Putin.[1] He explicitly rejects the United Nations (UN) by alleging it is not democratic, not effective, and not aligned with U.S. interests.[2] A few weeks before the Presidential election, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights called Trump “dangerous from an international point of view.”[3]

Trump’s major critique of international legal norms regards wartime conduct.

Albi Kocibelli
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
Sovereign immunity, while being forum dependent, has been recognized as an obligation under customary international law for long time.[1] The International Law Commission first took the task to identify and codify state practice on sovereign immunity in 1978.[2] After nearly three decades of work UN adopted the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property in 2004.[3] The Convention, not yet in force, adopts a restrictive theory of immunity. The restrictive theory is adhered to by most countries, except for a few countries such as Russia or China. While the schism between absolute and restrictive immunity is accepted in the literature, there are quite a few questions left on how much can immunity be restricted.[4]



Generally, commercial activities of states have been the most significant exception to the rule.[5] Besides that, exceptions to immunity for non-commercial torts have been limited to insurable personal risks occurring locally in the forum state (e.g. traffic accidents, slip and falls).[6] However, there has been controversy over the extent of the application especially in cases where the extent of damages is greater. In this regard, one of the most recent cases adjudicated by the IJC in 2012 is Jurisdictional Immunities

Seema Kassab
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
One of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes of the present day has been taking place in Syria over last five years. According to the UN, around 250,000 people have been killed, 13.5 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria, and more than 50% of Syria’s population is currently displaced.[1] Instability within the country has led to an infiltration of Islamic Extremist groups, most notably the so-called Islamic State (ISIL). The Islamic State’s presence in Syria and Iraq has increased to the point where the international community’s focus has shifted from the atrocities committed by the Syrian government to those committed by ISIL. As a consequence of the rise of ISIL, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2249, which called upon “[m]ember States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures in compliance with international law…to redouble and coordinate efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks committed specifically by ISIL…”[2]



In September 2015, Russian President Vladmir Putin received authorization from the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of parliament, to launch airstrikes on the ground in Syria[3]. Putin has legitimized this action as compliant with international law under UNSCR 2249, as well as the legal

Jenny Elkin
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
The past few years have seen a dramatic rise of Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East in the form of radical militant group ISIS. Responsible for targeted killings, rape, genocide, and destruction across huge swaths of land, ISIS fighters have steadily been establishing a dangerous stronghold in Iraq and Syria.[1] The international community, recognizing the need to stymie the spread of ISIS, has chosen to act in various ways. Some organizations have focused on assisting displaced persons, some countries have chosen military responses in the form of drone strikes, and still other groups have taken up arms locally.[2] Amal Clooney has recently made headlines by announcing that she plans to sue ISIS on behalf of her client, a woman horrifically injured by ISIS militants.[3] This has focused attention on another potential course of action against ISIS: prosecution by the International Criminal Court (the “ICC”).

The Mandate of the International Criminal Court allows the Court to prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.[4] In a report released August 3 of this year, the United Nations has confirmed what the Obama administration concluded in March—ISIS is committing genocide against Iraq’s Yazidi minority.[5] ISIS is also using

Salam Sheikh-Khalil
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
On September 30, the Jordanian government finally agreed to a deal with the U.N. to resume humanitarian aid to 75,000 Syrians stranded on the Jordanian-Syrian border.[1] Living in a harsh desert no-man’s land known as “the berm,” some since July 2014, the Syrians had been refused entry to Jordan.[2] Conditions at the “berm” had become severe—water was scarce, aid organizations were denied entry, and the last food delivery (a 30-day supply) had been in early August.[3] A representative from Medicins San Frontiers (MSF, also known as Doctors without Borders) described the Syrians as follows: “They are not really even permitted to exist where they are so they are sort of being insidiously phased out of existence -- almost like ghosts. They're not seen and they are not recognized by any entity.”[4]



The new deal will provide these forgotten persons with the basic necessities of life. But there is yet no word on whether they will be permitted entry into Jordan and formally recognized as refugees. And tragically, the Syrians at the “berm” are not the only “abandoned” refugees.

Kenya recently announced it would be closing the Dadaab refugee camp (the world’s largest), beginning this process with “voluntary repatriations.”[5]

Zoe Dixon
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
The age of globalization has allowed businesses to operate in the global economy at a level of interconnectedness not previously imaginable.[1] Increase in cross-border transactions brings continuous flows of capital, commodities, and technology to the furthest corners of the Earth.[2] It also brings ethical issues.[3] As the world’s economies become more interdependent, disparities in wealth and power grow larger, and the risk and potential consequences of a single economy’s movements affecting the rest vastly increase.[4] These phenomena bring support for the idea that because we are all participants in the international economy by sharing the Earth’s limited resources, all people are responsible for the wellbeing of all others who share the planet.[6]



Scholars of adoption policy and human rights advocates believe intercountry adoption is one important way to uphold the global responsibility to care for each other,[7] largely rejecting fears of corruption, and dismantling patriotic arguments that maintenance of the child’s birth culture trumps the child’s right to protection and a loving family.[8]

This article discusses this and other arguments against intercountry adoption; examines how these concerns led to stricter intercountry adoption regulation; considers the justifications for intercountry adoption; and, concludes that strict intercountry adoption regulation contravenes notions of

Katie Cassidy-Ginsberg
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
As technology continues to become more sophisticated, the problems in the laws governing cyber attacks and cyber security correspondingly grow. In setting the law and policy governing cyber attacks, the problem has often been thought of as “fighting a cyber-war,”[1] in which such cyber attacks are analogized to war or attacks of war.[2] The application of the international laws of war, however, has serious flaws in its application to cyber security. The uncertainty regarding when a cyber attack constitutes an “armed attack” and the difficulties in attributing such attacks to state actors create loopholes within which hackers can strike.

The first problem encountered when applying the international law of wars to cyber attacks is whether the cyber attack actually triggers the use of self-defense. Both Article 51 of the UN Charter and the customary international law of self-defense “seem to agree that what triggers the right to self-defense is an armed attack.”[3] An armed attack is considered “a use of force,” which is characterized by “its gravity and [] effects rather than by the instrument used.”[4] Thus, it is generally agreed that “substantial human and/or material destruction” is considered an armed attack.[5]

In applying these principles to cyber

Jose-Ignacio Saldana
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
On the eve of the historic referendum held in the United Kingdom (UK) to decide whether to leave the European Union (EU), Roberto Azevêdo, current Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), discussed the implications that an exit from the EU could have on the UK’s status as a member of the WTO. Mr. Azevêdo highlighted the potential challenges in the need to re-establish trade relationships with the EU Member States and the rest of the countries with which the EU currently has trade agreements. He pointed out that the UK would need to “re-establish its terms of trade with the WTO” after its exit from the EU. [1] A number of issues arise out of this scenario, including whether it could be possible for the UK to obtain a realistic projection of its future membership status within the WTO before leaving the EU, and decide whether to halt “Brexit” in view of these considerations, if possible.



Despite the turmoil caused by “Brexit” and the number of talks currently taking place between EU Member States,[2] nothing has actually happened—legally speaking. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides that “[a]ny Member State may decide to withdraw from the

Katrina Fetsch
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
In recent weeks, a normally peaceable state has found itself rife with conflict as protests erupted over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in North Dakota. The opposition began with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who opposed the pipeline on the grounds that its construction would result (and indeed has resulted) in the destruction of important historical and cultural artifacts, including ancestral graves, and that the pipeline’s proximity to the area’s water source poses a grave threat to the tribe’s drinking water. The controversy has grown into a human rights movement of historic proportions with thousands of supporters traveling from across the country to Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to join the cause.[1] Recent involvement of the United Nations Human Rights Council showed the issue reach an international platform, yet it remains to be seen if the Tribal Chairman’s trip to Geneva will have any impact on the situation in the United States or if recourse for the tribe in international forums will be effective.

The DAPL comes on the tail end of the recent oil boom in the Bakken oil fields of western North Dakota. The pipeline, built by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, would extend

Stephanie Zable
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
On October 17th, a hospital in Mirebalais, Haiti accepted a patient with cholera. By October 22nd cholera was well-established along the Haitian coast,[1] and a Haitian laboratory had confirmed Haiti’s first case of cholera in over a century.[2] In the six years since, the death toll of the Haitian cholera epidemic has reached at least 9,200, though reports indicate it could be much higher.[3] Some suggest that the reason for the rapid spread and high death toll is that Haitians had no immunity to cholera, as it had never before been seen in Haiti.[4] The disease was introduced into the country by Nepalese peacekeepers working at a base for the United Nations Stabilization Mission for Haiti (MINUSTAH). The base, located only two kilometers from the first reported cases, dumped untreated sewage into the nearby river, which fed into one of Haiti's main water supplies.[5] The humanitarian crisis caused by the rapid spread of the cholera was thus directly attributable to the UN presence.



The UN, however, has not been contrite. Even after the epidemic was tied directly to the peacekeepers and a Nepalese strain of the cholera virus, the UN insisted that the epidemic was largely due

Andrew Fletcher
Vol. 38 Associate Editor
There has recently been speculation by security experts and the Democratic Party that the Russian Government is using cyber-attacks to influence this year’s presidential election in the United States.[1] If true, the Russian Government could have the ability to shape America’s politics, while destabilizing its internal democratic system. Because of the threat that a cyber-attack potentially poses to a state’s democratic processes it is important to examine whether such an action is in violation of international law or norms and what, if anything, international law can do about it.



In July of 2016, the Democratic National Committee’s computer network was hacked and thousands of emails were released. The emails contained many embarrassing revelations, such as a concerted effort to undermine the candidacy of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary election, leading to the resignation of the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. Many security experts believe that the Russian Government was behind the hack, and the FBI has reportedly been working on building a case against Russia.[2]

There has since been rumors and speculation that the Russian Government could hack the voting systems in the United States to disrupt or determine the election results.[3]

International law is clear on

Colloquium
James C. Hathaway
Special Feature Seventh Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law


James C. Hathaway 
The Michigan Guidelines on Risk for Reasons of Political Opinion

Catherine Dauvergne

Toward a New Framework for Understanding Political Opinion
Article
Sharon Bassan
Shared Responsibility Regulation Model for Cross-Border Reproductive Transactions

Download Volume 37:2 at the Repository

Category: Volume 37
Comments: 0

Articles
S.I. Strong
Reasoned Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Embracing and Exceeding the Common Law-Civil Law Dichotomy


Charles W. Mooney, Jr. 
A Framework for a Formal Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism: The Kiss Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and Other Guiding Principles

Odysseas G. Repousis
On Territoriality and International Investment Law: Applying China's Investment Treaties to Hong Kong and Macao
Note
Jesse W. Stricklan
Testing Constitutional Pluralism in Strasbourg: Responding to Russia's "Gay Propaganda" Law

Download Volume 37:1 at the Repository

Category: Volume 37
Comments: 0

Christopher Balch
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
Although only the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem, the rise of global sea levels may present novel legal issues for hotly contested territorial disputes in the Arctic Ocean.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, global sea levels have risen at a rate of .12 inches per year primarily due to thermal expansion caused by the warming of oceans and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.[1] The National Snow & Ice Data Center reports that March 24, 2016 will likely be the maximum extent of Artic Sea ice for the entire year and will thus represent the lowest maximum ever recorded.[2] NASA satellite photograph analysis illustrates that polar ice caps are melting at a rate of 9% every 10 years[3] and some scientists predict that the polar ice caps might completely melt as soon as 2040.[4] Conservative estimates predict that oceans will rise between 2.5 feet and 6.5 feet by 2100 and more bleak estimates include the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would push sea level rise to 23 feet, enough to submerge London, New York, and other major world

Tania Morris Diaz
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
Ordinarily, the term ‘reprisal’ is used to refer to a State’s deliberate violation of international law as retribution directed at another State for breaking international law.[1] However, in the lesser-known context of international human rights law, reprisals are measures taken with “the intent to deter or punish individuals who have opposed legislative or policy framework adopted by public authorities.”[2] The difference is that reprisals in the international law context operate horizontally among States, while reprisals in the international human rights law context operate vertically among various actors. Essentially, reprisals occur when “a state violates international law norms if it commits an act of violence against, or intimidates, or curtails the rights” of an individual. A state also violates international law norm if it fails to act in a way that contributes to a “climate of impunity and arbitrariness.”[3]

The ambiguity of the term ‘reprisals’ garners some criticism, however. It invites the assumption that such a retaliatory act is in response to unlawful behavior and thereby legitimizes the sanctions whilst accepting authorities’ denial of judicial guarantees.[4] Reprisals, by their nature, are crosscutting of a range of rights. They involve interactions among State and non-state actors, individuals and

Michael Pucci
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
In his 2009 article in Foreign Policy, Moisés Naím popularizes the concept of minilateralism, a type of multilateralism that “bring[s] to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem."[1] Instead of relying on the post-WWII global institutions, many of which have become paralyzed because of their failure to adapt to changing power dynamics and requirement for world-wide consensus, minilateral organizations offer states an alternative type of international organization which is more limited in membership and scope.[2] In the domain of combatting terrorism, these organizations are particularly useful because they create soft law, incentivizing states to collaborate but not creating legal obligations.

One such minilateral organization is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an organization under the umbrage of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development whose “original mandate was to explore ways in which states and intergovernmental organizations could deter, prevent and halt money laundering.”[3] This mandate was expanded to include terrorist financing after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in the United States.[4]

Comprised of thirty-four nations and two regional organizations, FATF primarily acts by publishing recommendations, called the “FATF Recommendations” and which now number forty, that

Daniel Mooney
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
Reports indicate that United States and Cuban officials and Major League Baseball have been holding private meetings in the past months to figure out a way to allow Cuban baseball players to come to the United States legally to play in the MLB.[1] These talks are the latest in a string of attempts by the Obama administration to warm relations with Cuba.[2] These attempts will culminate in late March when President Obama will become the first U.S president to visit Cuba since 1928. The president, while in Cuba, will attend an exhibition game in Havana featuring the Cuban National team and the Tampa Bay Rays.[3]

Over 200 Cuban baseball players have defected from their home country to play professional baseball. Cubans are subjected to more complex MLB rules than other baseball players for several reasons. First, Cubans are forced to defect from Cuba to play professional baseball.[4] The MLB bars “the discussion or negotiation with anyone in Cuba regarding the signing of any player in Cuba.”[5] Ergo, no scouts or team representatives can contact any Cuban player while they are in Cuba. This policy essentially forces Cubans who have MLB aspirations to abandon their home and establish

Cole Lussier
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
Domestic conflict in a small Central African country is once again leading the international community to reflect on its willingness to ensure human security and republican government in a nation long marred by violence and instability. Since April 2015, the Republic of Burundi has teetered on the brink of civil war, prompting concerns of possible ethnic cleansing and genocide.[1] With the memories of neighboring Rwanda’s genocide still weighing on the global conscience, the killings in Burundi have once again raised serious questions regarding the sanctity of state sovereignty and the moral urge to protect human life and democratic government.[2] 

Civil unrest erupted in Burundi in April 2015, following the announcement that President Pierre Nkurunziza would seek a third term in power.[3] To opposition members, this clearly violated the Burundi constitutional provision limiting a president to only two terms in office.[4] Yet, Nkurunziza’s supporters argued that this limit had not been reached because the president had been elected by the legislature for his first term in office, rather than the electorate-at-large.[5]

The ensuing dispute over domestic constitutional law was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of Burundi, which among allegations of threats and the dissenting justice fleeing the country,

Jacob Greenberg
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
At the stroke of midnight on March 20, 2016, Greece began the process of designating all migrants arriving by boat for return to Turkey.[1] This major milestone in the refugee/migrant crisis was the product of deal struck by the European Union (EU) and Turkey just days earlier. Turkey agreed to receive and process all migrants arriving by boat in Greece. It will also sort those refugees fleeing war from other migrants.[2] The EU, in addition to paying to send the migrants to Turkey, has agreed to several other concessions. For each migrant the EU sends Turkey, the EU will resettle one vetted Syrian refugee. The EU will also send Turkey 3 billion Euros on top of the 3 billion it has already pledged to help it deal with the crisis, grant visa-free travel for Turks in Europe, and accelerate negotiations over Turkish accession to the EU.[3] 

Some analysts like The Economist are cautiously optimistic. Of the estimated 1.2 million migrants who entered Europe in the past year, most came through Turkey.[4] This plan both standardizes a system that badly needs organization and helps mitigate the incentive to illegally migrate to Europe.[5] Potential migrants will presumably be less

Christian Husby
Vol. 37 Associate Editor
On February 23, 2016, Tsinghua Unisplendour Corporation of China abandoned its attempted $3.78 billion purchase of a 15% stake in Western Digital, an American computer data storage company.[1] Tsinghua didn’t abandon the deal because it lost interest in the deal, and it wasn’t because it couldn’t get the financing; it was because of a decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment (“CFIUS”) to review the prospective deal.[2]

What is this committee that can scare off multi-billion dollar deals just with a threat of review? The CFIUS was organized in 1975 and charged with the duty of “monitoring the impact of foreign investment in the United States.”[3] At first, CFIUS’s powers were limited to requesting foreign governments to file reports about their foreign investment activities and to monitor investments.[4] This changed in the late 1980’s at a time of great fear in America about Japan’s economic rise.[5]

In 1987, Fujitsu, a Japanese informational tech company, proposed to purchase an 80% stake in Fairchild Semiconductor, a U.S.-based company, for over $200 million, but the deal was ultimately called off due to heavy pressures from the U.S. government.[6] Following this, in 1988, Congress passed the Exon-Florio Amendment. Exon-Florio responded to the

Page 4 of 10 1234567910